Seeing Perfectly Fitting Factor Models That Are Causally Misspecified
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Researchers using factor analysis tend to dismiss the significant ill fit of factor models by presuming that if their factor model is close-to-fitting, it is probably close to being properly causally specified. Close fit may indeed result from a model being close to properly causally specified, but close-fitting factor models can also be seriously causally misspecified. This article illustrates a variety of nonfactor causal worlds that are perfectly, but inappropriately, fit by factor models. Seeing nonfactor worlds that are perfectly yet erroneously fit via factor models should help researchers understand that close-to-fitting factor models may seriously misrepresent the world’s causal structure. Statistical cautions regarding the factor model’s proclivity to fit when it ought not to fit have been insufficiently publicized and are rarely heeded. A research commitment to understanding the world’s causal structure, combined with clear examples of factor mismodeling should spur diagnostic assessment of significant factor model failures—including reassessment of published failing factor models.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.094 | 0.438 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.016 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.024 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.002 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".